Search for: "Mays v. King County" Results 241 - 260 of 1,405
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Oct 2020, 9:05 pm by Dan Flynn
King Federal Courthouse in Albany, GA, on Feb. 24, 2021, for a hearing that could lead to freedom for the former peanut executive. [read post]
16 Sep 2020, 6:30 am by Sandy Levinson
  Given his time horizon, he is not really trying to reassure me that things will necessarily get better in my lifetime, as I am completing my eighth decade of life, but, rather, that my children, probably, and, most certainly, my grandchildren, may have reason to look forward to sunnier futures (defined, among other ways, by the return to more-or-less hegemonic power, for at least a while, of the Democratic Party). [read post]
9 Sep 2020, 3:22 pm by Kevin
As the district attorney argued in that case (Ryan v. [read post]
7 Sep 2020, 4:35 am by Peter Mahler
With apologies to the King James Bible, what the Manhattan real estate market giveth, a poorly conceived partnership agreement taketh away. [read post]
13 Jul 2020, 4:51 am by Peter Mahler
Realty Associates LLC v Blumberg, 2020 NY Slip Op 32200(U) [Sup Ct NY County July 7, 2020]  The aptly named S.O.S. [read post]
1 Jul 2020, 5:16 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
  Wong v Yeung-Ha  2020 NY Slip Op 31832(U)  June 11, 2020 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: 505276/18,   Judge: Karen B. [read post]
23 Jun 2020, 1:02 pm by Brian M. Wright
In King County, current data shows that 16.8% of positive cases require hospitalization. [read post]
23 Jun 2020, 11:12 am by Ashoka Mukpo
When Kishon McDonald saw the video of George Floyd’s murder at the hands of four officers from the Minneapolis Police Department, he could tell it was going to turn the country upside down. [read post]
18 Jun 2020, 6:38 am by Linda McClain
I share Carpenter’s conclusion that hesitation to “call out bigotry” may be appropriate when the goal is persuasion and conversation. [read post]
18 Jun 2020, 3:48 am by Giles Peaker
The County Court appeal had held that the wording of the regulations was such that a section 21 notice could not be served in those circumstances. [read post]